avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Divergence from Avalon (was Re: [RT] Is Poolable Harmful?)
Date Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:08:59 GMT
Paulo Gaspar wrote:

> And Hi again,
> =:o)
>>Well it comes down to what is intended to be pulled out from the manager. 
>>A4CM is intended to be used to pull out services while A4Context/A5CM is 
>>intended to pull out data relevent to specific 
> Nops. I often pull very life components, like DB connections or SQL queries
> (we like to put SQL query templates in XML). But I also get strings and 
> static lists of records.

For the record, DB Connection Objects && SQL Queries != Component.
The DataSource interface and any implementation can be construed as a
Component, because the interface is intended as an access point to data
(The Connection object).

Components should strive to have a simple interface that only exposes enough
detail for clients to do their job.

>>In A4CM the string is required to indicate a ROle/interface while in 
>>A4Context the key is an object. (In hindsight a free form string may have 
>>been better).
> I thought so at first but I find it very practical to do things like this:
>   IConverter cvt = ctx.get(IConverter.class);
> This gets the type conversion "service" from my context. See? I use the 
> context as a ServiceManager!
> =;o)
> I still found no problems with this approach.

BTW, What you call a service, we call a Component.


"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message